Monday, August 29, 2016

If you’re serious about wanting to take real, effective
action on climate change, you’ve got to put a rapidly escalating price on
carbon pollution. That was the message
speakers gave to Sudbury MP Paul Lefebvre earlier this month at his climate
policy town hall. With Catherine
McKenna, the Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, expected to
release a draft national climate change strategy later this fall, Members of
Parliament across the nation have been engaged in public consultation all
summer long (see: “Yellowknifers join Catherine McKenna to talk climate change,” CBC, July 12, 2016).

If Minister McKenna wants her Liberal government to be taken
seriously by Canadians clamouring for action on climate change, she’ll have to
ignore some provincial leaders like Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, and put a
national price on carbon pollution. But
pricing carbon is the easy part. Determining how the carbon fee will be
collected, and how the revenues used are the more difficult decisions the
Liberals will need to make.

“To work, the price on carbon has to be high enough to
change behaviour,” says Laurentian University Professor of Economics Dr. David
Robinson, who gave a presentation to MP Lefebvre about the need to send clear
and strong signals to consumers (see: “Why Ontario’s Climate Plan Has Already Failed,” Dr. David Robinson, Economics for Northern Ontario, June 19, 2016). “That means the [carbon] price is high enough
to convince most people to stop using gasoline cars and stop using natural gas
for heating.”

Robinson and others have suggested that an initial carbon
price somewhere between $30 and $50 per tonne is an appropriate place to
start. To be effective, the price will
need to rise to $100 to $150 per tonne by 2030. Right now, British Columbia has
the highest carbon fee in the nation, at $30 per tonne, where it’s been stalled
since 2012. Alberta and Ontario’s
climate plans call for an initial price of less than $20 per tonne, starting in
2017.

An effective climate change plan will require our government
to convince the public that it’s serious about following through on escalating
the price. That means talking about how
much more everything is going to cost consumers – and convincing voters that rising
prices on goods and services are beneficial.
That hardly sounds like a winning political strategy.

Certainly, Ontario’s Liberal government was reluctant to go
down that road. After hearing from the public about the need to put a
transparent price on carbon, Premier Wynne and provincial Minister of
Environment and Climate Change Glen Murray decided to use the most opaque
method available for pricing carbon – a cap and trade scheme that exempts many
of Ontario’s biggest emitters for several years. Ontario’s plan hardly provides the right
signals that the government is serious about the need to change consumer
habits (see: "A Failure of Ambition: Ontario's Climate Change Plan," Sudbury Steve May, July 10, 2016).

Ontario and Alberta are going about carbon pricing the wrong
way, treating it as a cash cow to fill government coffers. Yes, the money collected from carbon fees is earmarked
for new green infrastructure projects, like improving our public transit systems
– but these are the sorts of investments that our governments should be making
anyway, in the interests of our collective future economic prosperity, with
existing tax dollars.

If elected officials like Lefebvre and McKenna are serious
about climate change and want to champion the rapidly rising price on carbon needed
to reduce emissions and incent alternative energy development, there is only
one way to do it: give the lion’s share of revenue collected back to taxpayers
in the form of a dividend cheque or an income tax reduction. The extra money in
people’s pockets will help offset rising prices, and smart consumers will save
money by selecting low-carbon options.

Canadians are looking for real leadership from
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Let’s hope the federal Liberals choose to be
climate champions, rather than climate chumps like their provincial cousins
here in Ontario.(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own and should not be considered consistent with the policies and/or positions of the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario)Originally published in the Sudbury Star as, "Will feds be champions or chumps on carbon pricing?" in print and online as "Sudbury column: champions or chumps on carbon pricing?" August 27, 2016.

Friday, August 12, 2016

The following is a letter of complaint that I have submitted to the Green Party of Canada's Ombuds and Appeals Committee (with copy to the Executive Director of the Party and my Ontario representative on the Party's Federal Council).

August 12, 2016

Re: Unconstitutional
Actions and Activities Taken by the August 2016 General Meeting

To the Ombuds and Appeals Committee:

I am submitting a complaint to you in keeping with processes
outlined in the Green Party of Canada’s Constitution and By-laws, and specifically
in keeping with subsection 7.5.1 of the Party’s by-laws. I am a member in good standing in the Green
Party of Canada, and believe that I meet all of the criteria in the
Constitution and By-laws of the Party necessary to file this complaint.

Basis of Complaint

This complaint is based on a decision of a unit of the Party
which affected my rights as a member.
Specifically, the General Meeting chose to follow Robert’s Rules of
Order as a process for making decisions at the recent BGM in Ottawa, rather
than the Constitutionally prescribed Rules of Procedure (also known as “Green
Rules”).

More specifically, the following items form the basis of my
complaint:

1)The use of Roberts Rules of Order contravened
the Party’s Constitution;

2)As a result of this contravention, decisions
made at the General Meeting after the “adoption” of the Roberts Rules motion by
the General Meeting must be considered null and void, as the General Meeting
had no authority to make decisions through a process not contemplated by the
Party’s Constitution.;

3)The motion brought forward to adopt the use of
Roberts Rules was not of an emergency nature, nor was the emergency nature of
the motion even discussed/debated.
Failing to meet the test of an emergency motion, it should have been
ruled out of order;

4)The motion brought forward to adopt the use of
Roberts Rules was not in keeping with the Green Party of Canada’s Constitution
and By-laws, which set out the use of Rules and Procedures for General
Meetings. The General Meeting is bound
to decision-making within the framework of the Party’s Constitution and
By-laws. The motion should have been ruled out of order by the General Meeting
facilitator;

5)The expectations of members of the Party both in
attendance at the General Meeting and those not in attendance has been that the
General Meeting would conduct itself in accordance with the Party’s
Constitution and By-laws. That the General
Meeting did not use the Green Party’s Rules of Procedure contravened not only
the party’s Constitution and by-laws, but the expectation of the membership
that the General Meeting would conduct itself in accordance with the Party’s
Constitution;

6)As
the expectation of members that the General Meeting would conduct itself in
accordance with the Party’s Constitution, By-laws and Procedures was not met,
my rights as a member of the Party were violated by the General Meeting.

Potential Issue with Complaint
Jurisdiction - Analysis

As per subsection 7.5.1 of the by-laws, the Ombuds and Appeals
committee can only accept complaints pertaining to “organized Units and
Functionaries of the Party”. The General
Meeting appears not to be a “Unit” or a “Functionary” of the Party, despite the
fact that it is a decision-making authority (like Federal Council, which is
defined as a Unit).

However, the list of “Units” as per Section 7 of the
Constitution cannot be considered exhaustive.
Subsection 7.2.7 of the Constitution allows for the extra-Constitutional
creation of new “Units” by Federal Council or the General Meeting.

While I understand that the General Meeting does not
undertake to identify itself as a “Unit” of the Party, I wish to point out that
one of the roles of the Ombuds and Appeals Committee is to be responsible to
the general membership at General Meetings (By-law Section 7.4), and is indeed
sometimes called upon to make rulings on matters in front of the General
Meeting, despite the General Meeting not having met the strict definition of “Unit”
or “Functionary” of the Party.

I submit that this complaint is similar in nature to
complaints which could have been submitted to the Ombuds and Appeals Committee
at a General Meeting, in keeping with the Ombuds and Appeals Committee’s
function as per Section 7.4 of the by-laws.
The only difference is that this appeal of a decision made at the
General Meeting is coming after the fact, and from an individual who did not
participate in the General Meeting.

Based on the fact that the Ombuds and Appeals Committee does
receive and rule on complaints at the General Meeting, I believe the Ombuds and
Appeals Committee has jurisdiction to receive and hear this complaint regarding
a decision made by the General Meeting.

A quick comparison of
Robert’s Rules of Order vs. “Green Rules”

The Green Party’s Rules of Practice (“Green Rules”)
establish a consensus-based approach to decision-making, one which involves the
role of “facilitator” as a guide to achieving consensus. The very outcome sought by Green Rules is
different from that of Robert’s Rules, which employs a “majoritarian” form of
decision-making, where the outcome is to determine whether a matter under
consideration simply passes a specific threshold of support.

Not only are the Rules quite different in terms of the way
in which they are implemented, the very outcomes sought by each set of rules is
quite different. Decision-making through
the use of Green Rules seeks to arrive at a decision acceptable to a consensus
of the decision-making body.
Establishing that consensus often requires the use of a mediatative
process built into the Rules, led by the meeting Facilitator. Meetings held under Robert’s Rules do not
seek consensus, but instead are used only to determine support.

Motion GC16-08

This motion would amend the Party’s Constitution and By-laws
to replace the use of Green Rules with Roberts Rules at General Meetings and
the meetings of Federal Council. I
understand that the motion was adopted by the General Meeting, along with other
motions “greenlighted” through the Bonser Ballot process.

However, in keeping with Section 10.1.3 of the Constitution,
Motion GC16-08, although adopted by the General Meeting, was not in effect
immediately after adoption for use at the General Meeting, because the motion
had not been “ratified” by Members in a subsequent mail-in ballot. This Section of the Constitution reads:

10.1.3

Amendments shall be
adopted by a majority of the votes cast by Members in good standing at a
General Meeting, and shall only become effective upon Members in good standing
passing an identically worded amendment by a vote of greater than 1/2 (50%) of
the votes cast in a Members' vote conducted by mail-in ballot, with a ballot
return date of no later than one-hundred-twenty (120) days following the
General Meeting at which the amendment was passed.

Therefore, the use of Robert’s Rules was not available to
the General Meeting by the simple adoption of Motion GC16-08.

Adoption of Robert’s
Rules by the General Meeting

Although not in attendance at the General Meeting, I
understand that, on or about the time that the General Meeting’s Agenda was
adopted, that the General Meeting adopted a motion to use Robert’s Rules for
the remainder of General Meeting, and that in fact Robert’s Rules were used to
guide decision-making processe in workshops and at the plenary session.

The Party’s Constitution and By-laws set out a process for
bringing motions forward for consideration by the General Membership. This process to amend the Constitution and
By-laws was followed for Motion GC16-08 and other motions on the Bonser Ballot
(at least up until the General Meeting determined that it would use Robert’s
Rules, rather than the Constitutionally prescribed Green Rules of Procedure).

As per the Party’s Constitution and by-laws, and
specifically as per subsection 4.3.3 of the By-laws, only emergency motions may
be considered by the General Meeting, subject to meeting certain tests. Subsection 4.3.3 reads,

4.3.3

Motions that are not
submitted in advance and are moved from the floor of the meeting shall only be
considered if they are of an emergency nature and shall require a 2/3 vote to
be considered by the meeting.

As per the Green Rules of Procedure, in use when the General
Meeting was called by the Party, does not provide for the moving of motions
from the floor of a General Meeting beyond what is prescribed in the by-laws.

Based on my understanding of discussions which took place
prior to the adoption of a motion which essentially replaced the use of Green
Rules with Robert’s Rules, there was no discussion that took place which would
have characterized the motion as being of an “emergency” nature. And I submit that there could have reasonably
been no “emergency” pressing on the General Meeting to substitute one set of
rules for another at the General Meeting.

Analysis:

Without an discussion or actual or implied emergency, the
motion to use Robert’s Rules for subsequent decision-making activities by the
General Meeting was no in keeping with any established process in the Party’s
Constitution and by-laws. The motion
should have been ruled out of order by the General Meeting facilitator.

Further, the motion itself cannot have been considered
strictly procedural in nature, and the General Meeting facilitator ought to
have known that, given that Motion GC16-08, was before the General Meeting for
adoption. GC16-08 would have amended the
Constitution of the Party to allow for the use of Robert’s Rules.

It is beyond the realm of comprehension to believe that the
General Meeting, with a motion to amend the Constitution of the Party in front
of it, believed that it had any authority to take the same action on its own
initiative when clearly that action was already deemed to be beyond the purview
of the Constitution.

Is the Use of the
Green Party’s Rules of Procedure Prescribed by the Constitution?

Giving the General Meeting the benefit of the doubt that it
believed it could substitute one set of Rules for another to govern its
decision-making processes, the question is then raised as to whether the use of
Green Rules for General Meetings is prescribed by the Party’s
Constitution. Putting aside for a moment
Motion GC16-08, which was clearly formulated with the belief that the use of
Green Rules is a prescribed element of the Constitution and by-laws which
GC16-08 sought to amend, a closer look at the Party’s Constitution and By-laws
reveals that while some problematic wording exists, that only one overall
conclusion can be drawn, and that is the use of Green Rules for General
Meetings is a prescribed element.

Section 8.5 of the Constitution provides that General
Meetings may be called by the Party.

Constitution, 8.5

General Meetings of
Members shall be called in accordance with the Bylaws.

In this case, “called” should be considered to include not
just the notice given in advance of the meeting, but all activities/procedures
of the meeting (in other words, with regards to a “called” meeting, the
requirement is that notice be given in accordance with the by-laws, and that
the meeting follows all processes and procedures as set out in those by-laws). Any other definition would defy logic, as it
would not set out how a General Meeting would conduct itself, or even whether
the General Meeting or its decisions would have to be made in keeping with the Party’s
Constitution and by-laws, which are paramount for all decision-making within
the Party.

Although better terminology maybe ought to be in the Party’s
Constitution, I submit that the term “called” here includes not just notice
requirements, but also alludes to the conduct of the General Meeting.

By-law 4 sets out the processes for General Meetings. Perhaps somewhat problematically for my assertion,
the only explicit reference to “Rules of Procedure” is found in subsection 4.3.5
of the by-law These are the Rules which the Party is required to maintain available
to members as per 10.1.2. These are the
Rules on which the expectations of Members reside when it comes to
decision-making within the Party, including by our Federal Council and at
General Meetings.

While subsection 4.3.5 refers only to specific actions which
might take place at a General Meeting (amending a motion), this subsection is
written in such a way as to suggest that it is presumed that the “Rules of
Procedure” are already being used. The “In
accordance with” comment which prefaces this subsection implicitly implies the
use of Green Rules. Otherwise, it would
make no sense that for the amendment of motions, Green Rules be used, but that
for all other actions of the General Meeting, a different set of Rules could be
in effect.

Subsection 4.3.5 reads,

4.3.5

In accordance with the
Rules of Procedure of the Party, the text of motions, including amendments to
the Constitution or Bylaws, may be changed at a General Meeting providing the
original intent of the motion or amendment, as received by the Members with the
notification of the General Meeting, is maintained.

By-law 10 provides a list of documents which the Party must
keep available for Members. Subsection
10.1.2 indicates that one of these documents is the “Rules of Procedure”. The Party’s website even includes a helpful
hyperlink from the Constitution to the Rules of Procedure. It is clearly an important document for the
Party – and one which I am suggesting is integral to the interpretation of
decision-making processes as per the Party’s Constitution and By-laws.

The introduction of the Rules of Procedure appears to
confirm the importance of this document, and makes an explicit reference that
these Rules are to be used at general meetings.
In part, the Introduction reads,

Rules of Procedure -
Introduction

These are the full
procedures for use at Canadian Greens / Green Party of Canada general meeting
(convention/gathering) plenary sessions. A more relaxed version of these
procedures may be used for smaller meetings, sub-meetings or workshops.

Taken together, the “calling” of a General Meeting as per
the Constitution, the requirement for the Party to make available the Rules of
Procedure to all Members, the assumption that a General Meeting is already
using the Rules of Procedure to guide decision-making at the meeting as per
subsection 4.3.5 of the by-laws, and the explicit reference found in the Rules
of Procedure that they be used by the General Meeting, it appears evident that
the use of the Rules of Procedure for General Meetings is a requirement of the
Constitution and by-laws. Further, this
analysis appears to be shared by the authors, supporters and all Members who
voted on motion GC16-08, which sought to amend the Constitution and the By-laws
to replace the ‘required’ use of Green Rules.

Article 2 of the Constitution

Article 2 of the Constitution is clear. 2.1 reads,

2.1

This Constitution and
Bylaws shall govern the activities of the Party, all persons operating on
behalf of the Party, and the rights, responsibilities and duties of its
recognized Units, committees and membership.

Final Analysis

The General Meeting, by using Robert’s Rules for
decision-making at the meeting, instead of the Constitutionally prescribed
Rules of Procedures, acted in a manner which was inconsistent with and (in my
opinion) offensive to the Party’s Constitution and By-laws. By virtue of undertaking the use of a
decision-making process, one based not on the consensus-based approach of Green
Rules, but instead of the more adversarial and majoritarian approach offered
through Robert’s Rules, the General Meeting contravened not only the letter,
but the spirit of the Party’s fundamental guidance documents: the Constitution
and its by-laws.

The option to substitute the use of Robert’s Rules over the
use of Green Rules was not an option available to the General Meeting, as it
was not in keeping with the Party’s Constitution. More explicitly, the General Meeting should
have known this, given the very presence of Motion GC16-08, which sought the
same substitution of Rules, but through a process mandated by the
Constitution! In any other year, it may
be that the General Meeting, had it opted for the use of Robert’s Rules, might
have done so on the basis of Constitutional ignorance – but the presence of
GC16-08 as a matter being dealt with by the General Meeting suggests that
ignorance of this Constitutional requirement for the use of Green Rules was
extremely unlikely.

That is not to suggest that the General Meeting sought to
harm the Party – but it is to suggest that the General Meeting, and especially
its facilitator, ought to have known that the use of Robert’s Rules at the
General Meeting was not in keeping with the Party’s Constitution.

Harm

Did the use of Robert’s Rules harm the Party? Interestingly, the notion of “harm” does not
appear to be one f the considerations which the Ombuds and Appeals Committee
should use as a basis for its determination.
Instead, I point the Ombuds and Appeals Committee to the notion of
Member’s “rights”. But I will, briefly,
address the notion of harm.

Despite it being fairly clear that the will of the
membership was to substitute the use of Green Rules in favour of Robert’s Rules
at some point in the future (as per the success of motion GC16-08), the clear
expectation of Party members was that the consensus-based approach prescribed
by Green Rules was to be used at this specific General Meeting of members. The use of Green Rules might have led to
different outcomes, especially where contentious issues were discussed. I don’t know if ultimately the use of Robert’s
Rules at this specific BGM has “harmed” the Party, but I strongly suspect that
abiding by the prescribed Rules of Procedure might have led to different
outcomes, particularly on contentious matters.

Rights

What is clear is that my rights as a member have been
violated. I chose not to attend the BGM
in part based on the expectation that the General Meeting would conduct itself
in a manner prescribed by the Party’s Constitution and By-laws. This included the use of Green Rules for decision-making. As you are probably aware by now, this kind
of thing matters to me – I don’t think I would be taking the time to file this
complaint with you if I did not feel that my rights had been violated.

Again, while we will never know whether different outcomes
might have occurred at the BGM had Green Rules been used, I strongly suspect
that there may have been a greater emphasis to find consensus at the meeting
had the right set of rules been employed by the General Meeting. The use of Robert’s Rules may have led to
policy and directive motions being adopted by the General Meeting which might
not have occurred through the use of Green Rules, given the significant
difference in process and outcomes between the two sets of rules.

Remedy

Again, I urge the Ombuds and Complaints Committee to find
that the actions and activities of the General Meeting were not in keeping with
the Party’s Constitution and By-laws, and that the decisions made by the General
Meeting which stemmed from a process that used Robert’s Rules should be
considered null and void. I understand
that such a decision on the part of the Ombuds and Appeals Committee may appear
heavy-handed, given the significant work undertaken by the developers of policy
and directive proposals (of which I am one), along with the hard work by
members constituting the General Meeting.
But nevertheless the fruits of that work have been irrevocably tainted
through the use of a decision making process not in keeping with the Party’s
Constitution and By-laws.

The Ombuds and Appeals Committee has the authority to deal
with this complaint. Please hit the
reset button and declare the decisions of the General Meeting null and
void. My rights as a Member of the Party
require you to take this action.

Sincerely,

Steve May, Officer of the Nickel Belt Greens EDA

(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own and should not be considered consistent with the policies and/or positions of the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario)

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

You’ve probably heard it said that we can have both a
healthy environment and a healthy economy. Usually, these words are spoken by
environmentalists in response to those that claims taking meaningful action to
reduce the impacts of climate change are too costly. Of
course, the costs of inaction are much higher – an estimated drain of between
5% and 20% of the world’s GDP annually, according to the seminal Stern Reviewof on the Economics of Climate Change (October, 2006).
That’s literally tens of billions of dollars per year taken out of the global
economy.

Presently, we have both a sick environment and a sick
economy. The sickness at the heart of
our neoliberal economic system has disastrously endangered our natural
environment, which in turn is taking us down the road of economic ruin. There will be no clean planet without a
healthy economic system to sustain it. Or
more accurately, human civilization will not continue to thrive on the planet
without an economic system which makes a healthy environment its first
priority.

We’ve known about the perils of climate change for
decades. And we’ve long known about
what actions we will have to take if we are going to avoid the very worst impacts
of a warming world. There are many
solutions, but only a few actions will deliver both the healthy environment and
sustainable economy that the planet needs for human civilization to thrive.
Finding the right balance is critical if we’re going to avoid collapse. To strike that balance, we’ve got to wean
ourselves off of fossil fuels.

Along with being a necessity, there is no denying that the
switch to a low-carbon economy represents a clear and present threat to our
current economic system – or rather, to those who reap the majority of the
benefits of that system. But our
political elites can’t any longer ignore the calls made by the people for climate
action, or the warnings made by experts on the long-term costs of inaction.

What may be flying under the radar, however, are similar
calls which are being made to restructure our neoliberal economic system. These calls are coming from people’s
movements which have taken on many forms, from anti-pipeline activism to Occupy
Wall Street to those calling for Fair Trade. In Canada, the authors of the LeapManifesto (September, 2015) made the clear and compelling connection between action on the climate
crisis and economic reform. Experts, like Bank of England Governor Mark Carney,
are warning governments and corporations of the dangers of both wealth inequality
and catastrophic climate change (see:“Bank of England governor Mark Carney says climate change is an economic problem,” CBC News, July 15, 2016).

As with past climate change commitments, it’s difficult to
take seriously statements made by the political elites who champion a neoliberal
economic system completely at odds with ending inequality and slowing global
warming. Promises are made, but little
action is taken – and what little is taken is largely ineffective.

The Leap Manifesto calls for an end to the economics of austerity,
and for the emergence of the truly sustainable economic system that we need for
a healthy planet. But as long as
political elites on both the left and the right continue to champion fossil
fuel growth and neoliberal policies which enrich the wealthy at the expense of
the rest of us, we’ll have neither the social and climate justice necessary for
all of humanity to thrive.

Politicians need to read the writing on the wall, and
understand that voters aren’t going to accept lip service in place of real action
for much longer.

(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own and should not be considered consistent with the policies and/or positions of the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario)Originally published in the Sudbury Star as, "Neoliberal lip service won't help climate crisis," in print and online, July 30, 2016.